Wide Angle lens for my 6D
- Thread starter kalich
- Start date
- Status
Rokinon 14mm F2.8... Got one for fathers day and love it. Yes, it full manual and has mustache distortion, but is correctable with PTLens and other tools. Drawback is no way to add filters. Still, I have a blast with it (5D Mark III).
Upvote
0
C
crasher8
Guest
The Tokina 16-28 is super flare prone, not allegedly. Truth. I am not in the 17-40 camp. I have owned 2 copies and have not been happy with either , the 16-35 is no great wonder either. UWA zooms all have issues. Pick your battles. Now a wide prime is very different. I say find your widest focal length after a rental session with a zoom and buy a prime based upon the most used focal length. Really? No one 2nds my Zeiss motion?
Upvote
0
I'll add a vote for the 17-40mm L. It fits your price range, and is more than wide enough. I read all about the Samyang 14mm, so I bought one. It was crap. You don't want to risk getting a defective lens just before a trip. The distortion of the 14mm Samyang is also huge. Its far too wide for your needs, so you then have to crop.
I'd also vote for renting a Zeiss 21mm, or if you are really convinced you want ultra wide, rent the Zeiss 15mm. Just watch out, you will find yourself obsessed with owning one.
I'd also vote for renting a Zeiss 21mm, or if you are really convinced you want ultra wide, rent the Zeiss 15mm. Just watch out, you will find yourself obsessed with owning one.
Upvote
0
+1Mt Spokane Photography said:
I rented a Zeiss 21 a few times, fell in luv with it and ended up buying the 15
Killed the credit card, for a few months, but what the heck.
I'd rent, if your not sure. The 21 is a beaut lens for what you want to do. Sharp and great contrast.
Upvote
0
kalich said:
apparently not too bad for the range...
there is some (not too bad either) distortion, but hey, its a 12mm FF, AF zoom...
just be aware (e.g. buying used) that there is an older version (from what I read not that good) and a (rather improved) version II
some more technical stuff and samples here
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/676-sigma1224f4556iiff
http://www.camerastuffreview.com/sigma-lens-review/sigma-12-24mm-ii-review
http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/2011/11/review-sigma-12-24mm-mark-ii/
http://www.lenstip.com/326.11-Lens_review-Sigma_12-24_mm_f_4.5-5.6_II_DG_HSM_Summary.html
http://www.jirisebek.com/other/sigma-12-24.html (compared to 17-40)
Upvote
0
crasher8 said:
I have shot with the 16-28 now for two years and I love it...**** the flare haters that talk **** on this lens..Any Idiot with an above average IQ can compensate for any type of flair in the field, that is unless your IQ is somewhat below average...
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
mycanonphotos said:
I guess I'm dum, then. So dum that I cant even spell dum (although I can spell flare properly for the intended context, and not use it interchangeably with its homophone). :
See, the thing is, while it's easy to 'compensate for flare' by changing your composition, what if I want the light source in my image? What if that light source is what gives the image it's unique flair (as in, stylishness and originality), but I want the flair without the flare? How can I compensate? Please, educate and enlighten us with your erudite exposition...
BTW, for those who are interested, here's a flare comparison of the Canon 17-40L vs the Tokina 16-28.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:mycanonphotos said:
I guess I'm dum, then. So dum that I cant even spell dum (although I can spell flare properly for the intended context, and not use it interchangeably with its homophone). :
See, the thing is, while it's easy to 'compensate for flare' by changing your composition, what if I want the light source in my image? What if that light source is what gives the image it's unique flair (as in, stylishness and originality), but I want the flair without the flare? How can I compensate? Please, educate and enlighten us with your erudite exposition...
BTW, for those who are interested, here's a flare comparison of the Canon 17-40L vs the Tokina 16-28.
Gee I must be dum...you should be a teacher... I also guess by your extreme terms of endearment you didn’t bother to realize how I was using flair in my context..... I use the flair as a style in my shooting when it suits best...I don’t have any issues at all with how it "flares"..
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
mycanonphotos said:
Sorry, my apologies. I didn't understand your use of the word flair in context.
mycanonphotos said:
So, you are smart enough to compensate for any type of flair in your photos.
flair \ˈfler\ noun : stylishness and originality
com·pen·sate \ˈkäm-pən-ˌsāt\ intransitive verb : to offset an error, defect, or undesired effect
So, you're saying that flair, meaning a distinctive elegance or style in your shooting, is an error, defect, or undesired effect, but you're smart enough to be able to offset that flair by making your photos lack style and interest. Now I understand what you meant. Thanks for clarifying.
Upvote
0
mycanonphotos said:
Just because you like flare, doesn't mean you should call others dum(b) . Most photographers don't like the loss of a good image due to extreme flare, but it can legitimately be used to draw attention to a subject. Post some images demonstrating your use of flare.
The lens is well known for its flare, which can prevent taking a good image. If you are on the side of a canyon, and the sun is in the corner of your image, what is your workaround? It might just be better to use a lens that controls flare, rather than trying to move Grand Canyon.
Upvote
0
Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. Flare is not always a bad thing it just depends on what look yr going for...so many people talk bad about flare it just depends on how its used to add flair in your photographs... wow! I did it again...Love it..
Upvote
0
kalich said:
If you're searching for a lens just for this trip, I'd definitely go for a rent, as someone else already suggested.
Canon 14/2,8 or 16-35/2,8. I like the first one much more, but obviously a zoom is more handy.
Upvote
0
Having gone from a 10-22mm on a crop, to a 6D + 16-35, then bought a 24-70 2.8, I'm starting to realise that I use the 16-35 very little and when I do it's generally at 16mm - I've bought a Fisheye Optic for my Lensbaby this weekend, so pondering chopping the 16-35mm in for a 14mm prime. Personally had I got the 24-70mm first, I'd be going straight for the Canon 14mm 2.8 because when you want wide, you always seem to go as wide as possible.
Upvote
0
I second that... i always used the short end on ultrawide-lenses, because this is the reason I choosed the lense at those very moments 
. Maybe the 8-15 would be a difference, because the 15mm is really usefull and the 8mm gives a planetview. But I guess a 14mm prime makes more sense than a Zoom in this area. Just my taste.
. Maybe the 8-15 would be a difference, because the 15mm is really usefull and the 8mm gives a planetview. But I guess a 14mm prime makes more sense than a Zoom in this area. Just my taste.
Upvote
0
- Status
